Suppr超能文献

膜周部室间隔缺损患者经室周装置闭合术、传统外科修复术和经导管装置闭合术的比较:一项网状Meta分析。

Comparisons of perventricular device closure, conventional surgical repair, and transcatheter device closure in patients with perimembranous ventricular septal defects: a network meta-analysis.

作者信息

Li Dongxu, Zhou Xu, Li Mengsi, An Qi

机构信息

Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, P.R. China.

Evidence-based Medicine Research Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Nanchang, Jiangxi, P.R. China.

出版信息

BMC Surg. 2020 May 26;20(1):115. doi: 10.1186/s12893-020-00777-w.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Treatments for perimembranous ventricular septal defects (pmVSD) mainly include conventional surgical repair (CSR), transcatheter device closure (TDC), and perventricular device closure (PDC). We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis to compare the three approaches in patients with pmVSD.

METHODS

We searched for comparative studies on device closure and conventional repair for pmVSD to April 2020. A network meta-analysis was performed under the frequentist frame with risk ratio and 95% confidence interval. The main outcome was the procedural success rate. Additional outcomes were postoperative complications, including residual shunt, intra-cardiac conduction block, valvular insufficiency, incision infection, and pericardial effusion.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies of 8113 patients were included in the comparisons. The pooled estimates of success rate favored the CSR compared with the PDC. No significant differences of success rate were found in the TDC versus CSR and the PDC versus TDC. The pooled estimates of incidences of the residual shunt, new tricuspid regurgitation, incision infection, and pericardial effusion favored the PDC compared with the CSR. There were no significant differences between the PDC and TDC approaches in all outcomes except new aortic regurgitation.

CONCLUSION

The PDC technique not only reduces the risk of significant complications compared with the CSR, but also produces not inferior results compared with the TDC in selected pmVSD patients.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019125257.

摘要

背景

膜周部室间隔缺损(pmVSD)的治疗方法主要包括传统外科修补术(CSR)、经导管封堵术(TDC)和室周封堵术(PDC)。我们旨在进行一项网状Meta分析,以比较pmVSD患者的这三种治疗方法。

方法

我们检索了截至2020年4月关于pmVSD封堵术和传统修补术的比较研究。在频率学派框架下进行网状Meta分析,计算风险比和95%置信区间。主要结局是手术成功率。其他结局包括术后并发症,如残余分流、心内传导阻滞、瓣膜关闭不全、切口感染和心包积液。

结果

纳入比较的有24项研究,共8113例患者。与PDC相比,成功率的合并估计值更支持CSR。TDC与CSR、PDC与TDC之间的成功率无显著差异。与CSR相比,PDC在残余分流、新发性三尖瓣反流、切口感染和心包积液发生率的合并估计值方面更具优势。除新发主动脉反流外,PDC和TDC在所有结局方面均无显著差异。

结论

与CSR相比,PDC技术不仅降低了严重并发症的风险,而且在选定的pmVSD患者中与TDC相比效果不劣。

PROSPERO注册号:CRD42019125257。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1aa9/7249310/fadbe170946c/12893_2020_777_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验